You dont need a radar gun. A serve that is going 80 clearly looks slower than a serve that is going 110. If you have seen them both, its quite easy to distinguish between the two.

Click to expand...

If you've never confirmed what a real 110 or 80 mph serve looks like (with a radar gun), how are you so sure the serves you think are 110 and 80 aren't actually 95 and 65 mphs, respectively? You aren't.

Just to entertain the thought, I did measure using the "FPS" formula available on the internet. It first came out that I was serving 41 mph, but then I realized the FPS was 50 and not 25. If I can produce a quality 82 mph second serve, I dont see what is so hard to believe about me squaring up the racket face and serving 110 on a good go.

Click to expand...

You are putting waaay to much faith in this. Are you sure this method is proper to even apply to get an accurate mph estimate on a tennis serve, given that it is a different method entirely for how serve speeds are usually calculated? Did you bother to check the margin of error on this method? Are you sure you did the math right?

I explained it many times over. If you guys are skeptical thats fine. I tell people im a 3.0 and they're skeptical of that too, lol.

It doesnt infuriate me, it makes me laugh if anything. There are too many people who base the possibilities of others based on their own experience. They see 5.0's serving 110, so that must be mutually exclusive to 5.0's, that is their logic. They havnt seen anything like that in 3.5 super seniors, so it CANT EXIST!

Click to expand...

It's not about what can or can not possibly exist. It's about what's likely. From my perspective, it is more likely that you are mistaken about what you believe to be your (and your opponents) actual serve speeds than it is that you are right and somehow some true 3.0 who also can hit 110 mph on a 1st serve and has a consistent 80mph 2nd serve.

I am an 29 year old 3.5, so I've never played a seniors match. I don't have a serve that comes anywhere close to fitting your descriptions of your own, and haven't come across any 3.5s who do, much less 3.0s, and the 4.0s that I know don't fit that serving description either. It's still possible that what you are saying is actually accurate, but it just isn't likely in my opinion.

It apparently also doesn't seem likley to anyone else that has said anything about the issue, with all of them having their own personal experiences, with apparently your claims being inconsistent with all of those experiences as well.

My extra most favorite part is the explanation that OP *can* hit 110 mph serves, but he just doesn't want to. Doesn't need to, you see. He can dominate 3.0 and compete at 3.5 without the Big Ivo Gun.

Um, yah. I get it. You could step up to the line at 3.5 and bring that Karlovic-esque serve, hold at love every time ('cause no way can a 3.0 or 3.5 return that kind of serve), and never lose.

What's that? You can't step up to the line and bring that big bad serve? Then you are no different than anyone else who *cannot serve 110.*

Good lord on a stick. I play mixed. I have had to try to return the serves of guys who were 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5. Despite my fragile, octogenarian status (huge eye roll), I can return reasonable numbers of the serves of all of those gentlemen with the notable exception of the 4.5 men. The 4.5 guys make me look foolish.

Trust me, man. If the highest competitive level you are playing is 7.0 men's, you have no clue what a 110 serve out wide looks like. You haven't been hitting them, and you haven't been receiving them. And neither have I.

Look. I'm not a big fan of dissing someone's NTRP level or having higher-ranked players dismissing the experiences of lower-ranked ones. We all have seen posters who talk about their scorching FH at 3.0 ladies. What those posters mean is that their FH is a scorcher *for their level.* That's how we should interpret such remarks.

You, however, have gone too far. Instead of saying your serve is fast (for its level), which is subjective, you have tried to use an objective measure. I am fully prepared to believe your serve is strong for your level. 110 out wide by objective measure? Nah. Not a chance.

The fact that every one here thinks its so impossible that anyone rated lower than them cant possibly be better is what keeps me going in this thread. It seems that if a 4.0 serves 90 mph, then a 5.0 serves 110, so... a 3.0 serves 70 MAX!

Click to expand...

Dude, you keep missing the point. You are right that there is no absolute link between service speed and rating level. But, there is a very strong link between service speed and service technique. In general, lower rated players do not have great technique. There are exceptions as always. But in your case, you have ok but not great technique on your strokes from what we saw in the video, so it seems a fair assumption that you similarly have ok but not great technique on your serve.

You keep avoiding this point. Why don't you address it directly - do you think your serve technique is comparable to your coach's, for example?

I didnt get a chance to start tennis early in life. I just started messing with it in high school. By the time I took tennis serious, I was well over 25, im 28 now.

Click to expand...

See, again this is what we are saying. Given when you started playing, and how long you've been taking is seriously for, it is very unlikely that you have developed the technique needed to serve the way you claim.

Many of us have been around the game a long time and know what it takes to progress and know what it takes to hit a 110+ serve. If you could pull the kinetic chain together to do that you'd at least have a great FH too (much easier stroke) - no way you'd be playing 3.0/3.5.

I'm curious. What do the golfers say? Do they all drive farther than Tiger Woods?

Do they ever brag about their short games? I'm guessing not, as that would be as common as a 3.0 rec player bragging about their volleys.

Click to expand...

Internet golfers all seem to swing at 115-120 mph (PGA Tour average is 113 mph), hit their drives in the 290-310 range (low handicap golfers hit their drives an average distance of around 230 yards). They tend to say they are above average ball strikers, but being hel back by bad chipping/putting skills. In other words, they excel at the "manly" part of the game but are deficient in the skill categories.

Adding a 110 heater and a 90 placed serve would be a very good 4.0 player, probably more like a 4.5. So, I'm just saying that something ain't right. And I'm going with the part that I haven't seen.

Click to expand...

I've read all the responses in this thread, but this one makes me curious. What do you mean by "something aint right?". If you're meaning to say that "im not a 3.0" then you're right, but my NTRP rating is 3.0C and that is not a bogus account.

I feel I am no longer a 3.0 so elected not to play this seasons adult league and I played 3.5 (as a 3.0 instead) and anticipated the rating increase by playing up. I feel like I am top tier of the 3.0's and can easily get better. I feel like playing 3.0 another year would just be a waste of time since I have other goals im trying to reach.

I want to be 4.0 by the time im 30, and 4.5 by the time im 35 so I can still be more or less competitive.

To everyone else in this thread:

Laugh and be as skeptical as you want. Not everyone is as bad as you think they are. People keep pretending to be dumber and dumber as threads go on and im not going to keep repeating myself.

I've read all the responses in this thread, but this one makes me curious. What do you mean by "something aint right?". If you're meaning to say that "im not a 3.0" then you're right, but my NTRP rating is 3.0C and that is not a bogus account.

I feel I am no longer a 3.0 so elected not to play this seasons adult league and I played 3.5 (as a 3.0 instead) and anticipated the rating increase by playing up. I feel like I am top tier of the 3.0's and can easily get better. I feel like playing 3.0 another year would just be a waste of time since I have other goals im trying to reach.

Click to expand...

No, I believe you are a 3.0C. I believe you will be a 3.5. I still don't believe that you have a world class serve, as you continue to claim.

NTRPolice- I just think that if you bookmark this page and come back to it in a couple years that you will find it highly entertaining how good you used to think you were.

I also just find it puzzling why you are so sure that you can serve 110 without really any justification for it. You haven't talked about being measured with a radar gun. You didn't like the results when you tried to measure it using the video method. I haven't seen where your coach was telling you that you serve 110. You certainly haven't faced anything close to a 110mph serve. I just find it interesting that you are so sure that you can do it. This is a long thread so maybe I just missed the part where you told us this but I do think it is interesting.

Yeah. He certainly won't be the first to realize how dang hard it is to go from a 3.0C to a 4.5C.

I was shocked how many years it took to improve from 3.0C to 4.0C. It took genuine commitment to striking the ball differently, which in turn took a sick amount of instruction and practice. It was just so hard to generate any kind of ball that would bother the higher-level (or even more experienced) players.

I consider 4.5 to be completely out of the question. Even for guys, it takes some real work to get up to 4.5.

If you're meaning to say that "im not a 3.0" then you're right, but my NTRP rating is 3.0C and that is not a bogus account.

Click to expand...

This is significant regarding Cindy's OP premise that NTRP-based, USTA computer ratings are the truest index of relative playing strength. I have to wonder how many more thousands of players nationwide have NTRP-based USTA C ratings are playing above (or below) the average or normal playing strength for those ratings.

I feel like I am top tier of the 3.0's and can easily get better. I feel like playing 3.0 another year would just be a waste of time since I have other goals im trying to reach.

Click to expand...

I agree, my impression on watching all your videos was that you clearly have above 3.0 skills, and, as you noted, probably closer to 4.0 than 3.5. 3.0s don't hit backhands like the one you hit against the 5.0 guy, and, watching the groundstroke drill it looks to me like you have the potential to be a winner at 4.0. I'm not going to say anything about your serve except that your serving motion (from, what, 2 months ago?) looks like it can potentially generate consistent serves in the 90 + mph range, and since you're getting instuction and seem quite motivated to improve, then I fully expect that you can be consistently hitting serves approaching or maybe even exceeding 100 mph in match play. It's just a matter of court time and concentrated practice.

I want to be 4.0 by the time im 30, and 4.5 by the time im 35 so I can still be more or less competitive.

Click to expand...

You said you're 28? So, I see no reason why you can't be a bona fide 4.0 before you're 30. I think it really is just a matter of the number of quality hours you're able and willing to spend on the court.

People seem to forget when a pro serves 110 that there is still a significant amount of spin on it. When Roddick, Dent or Karlovic serves 150, they are not trying to put spin on it at all.

My claims of 110 are me squaring up the face at impact with the sole intention of trying to serve as flat (and fast) as possible. The reason why most people dont serve like this is because its inconsistent, its risky, and you need to beat them with the pace because the shot is not hard to return.

Cindy is probably the best of the posters in this thread. 3.0 to 4.5 is hard to get to? Of course, but 3.0 to 4.0 should be pretty easy for anyone who isnt a scrub, who tries, and who doesnt game the system, and isnt 60 years old. I've gone from a 3.0 to close to a 4.0 in ability in 2 years. I have another two years to get to 4.0. Then I have 5 years to get to 4.5 by which time ill be around 35 years old. 4.5 is "out of the question"? lol, maybe for you.

I love how everyone seems to think that I havnt faced a 110 mph serve, you know, because I only play league once a week.

I play tennis 5 days a week minimum, and my skill of opponents varies from 3.0 super seniors to 5.0 college players. I've hit in the park before, where some 4.5/5.0 active college players needed a 4th, and im not talking about the guy in my videos.

Cindy. LOL. Of all people in this thread, you're the one I want to play a set with the most. I even have this mental picture of what you look like. I would risk double faulting 4 times in a row just to get a good flat one into your body and watch you almost fall over because you cant get out of the way in time, or watch you misjudge a second serve and almost get hit in the face.

No, I dont want to "hurt" but, but of all people in this read, id like to give you a reality check the most, just because you seem so sure that I will never be a 4.5, lol.

Nice link; yeah I agree that looks around 105-110. One thing to look for is where the serve hits the back fence. You can see that at these speeds the ball hits the back fence 5-6 feet up. Obviously this is not accurate since not all courts have the same amount of space behind the baseline, spin will change the trajectory, etc, but still it's a decent indicator.

Bottom line: Be as honest as you can. If your rating is not official, just say that.

Sorry to be such a stickler, but there is enough misinformation and kvetching about sandbagging etc without having people muddy the waters more by saying they are 4.0 when it is based on what their pro told them, or the country club rating conversion chart, or a home grown algorithm.

Click to expand...

USTA isn't the Universe, either, and a USTA rating has relevance only in the USA

You may be aware that there are a number of other countries in the world in which tennis is also played.

There are also a rather large number of posters on this forum who hail from these selfsame countries.

With this in mind, might I respectfully suggest many of these people, myslef included, assign themselves a USTA rating for convenience when discussing tennis on these boards. We can be pretty accurate as there are some very precise and detailed international rating systems that allow us to convert our ratings.

Nice link; yeah I agree that looks around 105-110. One thing to look for is where the serve hits the back fence. You can see that at these speeds the ball hits the back fence 5-6 feet up. Obviously this is not accurate since not all courts have the same amount of space behind the baseline, spin will change the trajectory, etc, but still it's a decent indicator.

Click to expand...

I think most courts (just from my limited experience) have about the same amount of space behind the baseline. But I could be wrong about that.

Yeah, the guy in the video is hitting pretty high on the back fence. He's serving pretty flat. I have to guess that I probably wouldn't be able to do anything but feebly block those back, if that.

If you noticed from my video, even 70 - 75 mph flat serves hit the back fence on one bounce. 70 mph seems to be about the cutoff for serves hitting the back fence on one bounce.

I did not to mean to say that 4.5 was out of the question for you. I was talking about how I consider 4.5 to be out of the question for me. Sorry I wasn't clearer. It is obviously more attainable for younger people and probably for guys, and I would never predict how far you could go given that I haven't seen you play.

Could you, a 3.0C who has been playing for two years, knock me over with your best serve or hit me in the face? Of course not. If you stood there and blasted your very fastest serves at me, I would just receive from well behind the baseline. By the time the ball got to me, I would attempt to block it back. I might or might not be successful at this. Hit me? Knock me over? Nah.

And if your consistency and aim are poor, you wouldn't be hitting the corners and I wouldn't have to worry about standing in to guard the angles.

What can I say? I have faced many a 3.5 male player, and a few had hot serves. I win some, I lose some. It's just another match for me, even if they think they are Dr. Ivo.

I love how everyone seems to think that I havnt faced a 110 mph serve, you know, because I only play league once a week.

I play tennis 5 days a week minimum, and my skill of opponents varies from 3.0 super seniors to 5.0 college players. I've hit in the park before, where some 4.5/5.0 active college players needed a 4th, and im not talking about the guy in my videos.

Click to expand...

I say it because your league matches are against 3.5 players. And even if you get a pickup match against a 5.0 active college player then he isn't going to bother hitting a 110 mph serve against a 3.5 player in a pickup match. And even if you are receiving a real first serve from an active college player I don't think you would have any idea how to try and guess the speed. People new to tennis dramatically tend to overestimate serve speed and they tend to think that pretty much anyone who hits a hard serve is in triple digits but that simply isn't the case. I will also say that the fact you think that you hit 110 is more evidence that you haven't actually faced 110.

When the sum and total of your belief that you hit 110 is based on your coach one time saying "thats so Ivo!!!" then it just isn't all that persuasive to me. Why don't you ask your coach what he thinks your serve is?

Like I said- someday after you have been playing tennis longer you will look back at this thread and get a good laugh out of yourself.

Almost every court has 21' behind the baseline.
If the court is grippy, like newly painted or new courts, abrasive surfaces, the bounce is higher.
If the court is wet grass or slick, worn down cement, the bounce is lower and it skids.
Serves hit at 6,000 feet will go faster AND bounce higher.
Serves hit in 55 degree fog will go slower.
Wilsons generally bounce higher, can be hit faster because they're lighter.
DunlopHDChampHardCourts are like the heaviest, knappiest balls ouy there, so serves won't look so impressive.
Hot temps, ball bounces, flys thru the air.
Cold temps, no.
Taller players usually hit higher bouncing serves.
That vid guy is hitting well over 100, so estimates are probably right on. I think he's tall, and the weather is hot/dry, and new courts.

Almost every court has 21' behind the baseline.
If the court is grippy, like newly painted or new courts, abrasive surfaces, the bounce is higher.
If the court is wet grass or slick, worn down cement, the bounce is lower and it skids.
Serves hit at 6,000 feet will go faster AND bounce higher.
Serves hit in 55 degree fog will go slower.
Wilsons generally bounce higher, can be hit faster because they're lighter.
DunlopHDChampHardCourts are like the heaviest, knappiest balls ouy there, so serves won't look so impressive.
Hot temps, ball bounces, flys thru the air.
Cold temps, no.
Taller players usually hit higher bouncing serves.
That vid guy is hitting well over 100, so estimates are probably right on. I think he's tall, and the weather is hot/dry, and new courts.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that about Wilson balls. Thanks. Been using Penns.

Are you a scientist?

You've motivated me to actually measure the distance between the back line and the fence at my local courts. Seriously. I'm retired.

I'm dating a scientist. She summarized the recent German E Coli virus outbreak this spring.
I'm an artist.
Measure it.
About 9.5 racketlengths, if you don't have a tape measure
Penn's bounce between Dunlop and Wilsons. I suspect Slazenger and Dunlop to be made by the same company.
I've spent most of my tennis years in 50% humidity, 55 degree air temps in SanFrancisco.
When I go out to Concord or Sacto to play, in 95+ heat and dry humidity, my serves goes up easily 20% in speed.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Cindysphinx, than are dreamt of in your USTA computer...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links Timbo. Your comments keep it fresh that tennis is truly an international sport, and that the standard of recreational play in the USA is not necessarily the highest in the world. But that's another consideration for another thread.

I played 7.0 and 8.0 mixed doubles the last few years, as a 3.5 and 4.0 player. My record in 7.0 mixed was almost perfect last year, as I was a 3.5 on the verge of a bump up.

I could never beat a 3.5 guy in singles.

I probably cannot beat a 3.5 woman in singles.

Click to expand...

Oh ... well still, you were competing against, and sometimes beating, 3.5 guys (4.0?) involved in some of your mixed doubles matches. That's a pretty good level of playing, imo. Not that I'm in awe. But still kudos and respect. Since, I suppose, you've been playing regularly for at least a few years, then I have to also suppose that you would probably kick my butt at my current level of competing. (But, give me some time. It's coming back to me, and I am getting more stamina and endurance as I play and practice more.)

I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of others. From where I sit, it looks like most of the younger 3.5/4.0 guys I see. The main thing I noticed was that the student fell to his left after the serve out of balance and I believe that is incorrect. The pros leap/fall into the court but use footwork to recover in good balance. The teaching pro pointed this out late in the video, if I heard correctly.

My point is that if you are telling folks that you are a 5.0 (or 4.0 or 4.5) based on what the coaches and directors of your league are telling you and not based on a USTA computer rating . . . well, that is not accurate.

You may in fact have skills that would allow you to be a computer-rated 5.0, but that doesn't mean you should claim to be a 5.0. 'Cause without that actual computer rating, you're just guessing.

Frankly, the problems I am describing are more likely limited to those who are 4.5 and below. There aren't many USTA league playing opportunities for 5.0s, so that does tend to be a different orbit.

Click to expand...

The rub to this is that there are thousands of very active tennis players that have no USTA rating and aren't a member. Like myself. But I am very active in the local tennis community and in things like these forums where people speak the language" and you tend to get the question often..."what's your rating?". Now technically, I'm not rated, but I play in a "non-sanctioned" (I dislike that term in this context, btw) league in what is called 3.5 singles, and I do fair in it. Am I wrong to answer their question by saying I'm 3.5?

But I am very active in the local tennis community and in things like these forums where people speak the language" and you tend to get the question often..."what's your rating?". Now technically, I'm not rated, but I play in a "non-sanctioned" (I dislike that term in this context, btw) league in what is called 3.5 singles, and I do fair in it. Am I wrong to answer their question by saying I'm 3.5?

The rub to this is that there are thousands of very active tennis players that have no USTA rating and aren't a member. Like myself. But I am very active in the local tennis community and in things like these forums where people speak the language" and you tend to get the question often..."what's your rating?". Now technically, I'm not rated, but I play in a "non-sanctioned" (I dislike that term in this context, btw) league in what is called 3.5 singles, and I do fair in it. Am I wrong to answer their question by saying I'm 3.5?

USTA isn't the Universe, either, and a USTA rating has relevance only in the USA

You may be aware that there are a number of other countries in the world in which tennis is also played.

There are also a rather large number of posters on this forum who hail from these selfsame countries.

With this in mind, might I respectfully suggest many of these people, myslef included, assign themselves a USTA rating for convenience when discussing tennis on these boards. We can be pretty accurate as there are some very precise and detailed international rating systems that allow us to convert our ratings.